Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 12.10.2001, by which the appeal filed against the order of SDO dated 5.6.2000, has been allowed and the order dated 5.6.2000 and decree passed on the basis of compromise dated 27.6.1975, were set aside and the suit has been restored to its original number and the Trial Court has been directed to try the suit after hearing the parties and the order of Board of Revenue dated 28.11.2013 dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order and order dated 13.5.2015 rejecting the recall application of the petitioners.
(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 2/70 (area 1.31 acre) of village Shivpur Diyar, Sumali, pargana and district Ballia. The petitioners filed a suit on 11.6.1975 under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring them as bhumidhars of the land in dispute and a compromise was filed on 27.6.1975. In terms of the compromise, the suit was decided by the SDO by order dated 27.6.1975. Thereafter, the contesting respondent Shiv Narain Pandey filed an application dated 27.2.1999 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 27.6.1975. It has been stated by the respondents that no summon of the suit was issued to him, rather, a fabricated compromise was filed and on its basis, the suit was decreed. When the village was placed under survey and record operation, then he came to know about the compromise decree dated 27.6.1975 and filed the application for setting aside the decree along with a delay condonation application. The SDO after hearing the parties, by order dated 9.6.2000, held that although survey and record operation in the village was started in the year 1995, but the application for setting aside the compromise decree was filed on 27.2.1999, as such, there is no explanation of delay during this period. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application for setting aside the compromise decree was not liable to be condoned. On this finding, he rejected the delay condonation application as well as dismissed the application for setting aside the compromise decree as time barred.
(3.) SHIV Narain Pandey filed an appeal from the order dated 5.6.2000, which was heard by Commissioner, who by order dated 12.10.2001 found that no summon in the suit was issued to the defendant. The suit was filed on 11.6.1975 and decided on the basis of compromise on 27.6.1975. The defendant has denied filing of the compromise. Thus, in such circumstances, the defendant had no knowledge either of the suit, or the compromise and the delay was liable to be condoned, but the Trial Court has illegally rejected the delay condonation application. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 5.6.2000 as well as compromise decree dated 27.6.1975. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue. It is alleged that some of the revisionists died during pendency of the revision and substitution applications have been filed. The opposite parties have also died and the substitution applications have been filed for substituting their heirs, along with delay condonation applications. Before the Board of Revenue, various dates were fixed for hearing of the revision and all of a sudden, the Board of Revenue by the order dated 28.11.2013, decided the revision, without hearing the arguments as well as without allowing any of the substitution applications. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 28.11.2013, which has been rejected by Board of Revenue by the order dated 13.2.2015. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;